Posted 6 years ago on July 16, 2012, 11:27 a.m. EST by delayedgrat
(-157)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Corporations are made up of people. Halliburton has 75000 employees. GM has 207000 employees. Why should they be restricted from grouping together and exercising "speech" in terms of campaign donations?

Also on a differing tack (sailing), if we cut military spending wont a whole bunch of people become unemployed?

72 Comments

The problem with allowing corporations to donate is that the 75,000 employees of Halliburton actually get no say as to where those donations go -- neither do they get a choice between political donation, pay, benefits, or retirement. Thus, corporations are not even representative, little less a "grouping" exercising "speech."

The entire premise of voting in this country is that each PERSON gets a vote -- whether man or woman, black or white, white collar or homeless, Democrat or Republican.

The Joint Strike Fighter (F-35) is now slated to cost the American taxpayer $1.5 trillion, with about $1 trillion attributable to its expensive maintenance costs. Adm. Michael Mullen, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has noted that ''the most significant threat to our national security is our debt.''

Dollar for dollar, money invested in weapons produces fewer jobs than money invested in education, green jobs or a myriad of other industries, according to a study by the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst

The cost of the current Department of Defense weapons portfolio has grown by more than $447 billion from initial estimates.

President Eisenhower was right when he said, ''Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.''

And they do work. If you don't believe it, look closer at Germany and China.
(Reuters) - German solar power plants produced a world record 22 gigawatts of electricity per hour - equal to 20 nuclear power stations at full capacity - through the midday hours on Friday and Saturday, the head of a renewable energy think tank said. That highlights Germany’s leadership position in the field — it has nearly as much solar power capacity as the rest of the world combined.

First Solar just signed an agreement with China to build the biggest solar power plant yet, according to a statement released today by the company. The 2-gigawatt plant in the Mongolian desert will generate enough electricity to power three million homes.

The largest solar plant currently in operation is a mere 60-megawatt plant in Spain, according to pvresources.com.

The main issue is power storage and that is in the process of being solved. Prudent Energy's Grid-Scale VRB(R) Energy Storage System Is Major Step Forward in Electricity Storage and Management BETHESDA, Md., April 26, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The largest flow battery system in the world, capable of storing and delivering grid-scale power instantaneously, received permission to operate from the local utility and will begin full operation in the weeks ahead, announced Prudent Energy, the manufacturer of the VRB(R) Energy Storage System. The project's commissioning marks a significant point in the deployment of large-scale electricity storage system. (Solar and photovoltaics are the same thing.)

I read the link on German solar power plants and I was impressed. Of course I lean to a conservative bent and because of that I am not calcified into a liberal philosophy that is more troglodyte. I can acknowledge that I did not know there were such well run solar plants and thank you very much for opening my eyes.

In Afghanistan, the US-led international force still occupies more than 450 bases. In total, the US military has some form of troop presence in approximately 150 foreign countries, not to mention 11 aircraft carrier task forces—essentially floating bases—and a significant, and growing, military presence in space. The United States currently spends an estimated $250 billion annually maintaining bases and troops overseas.

So, the "people" (corporations) have gotten together and bought out Congress, politicians, leaders...while stabbing the American citizens in their backs as they take away their rights as a nation of people? Absurd!

Military spending......divert that spending into educating our children with their history and the truth thereof, Take away the lies so distorted with political and racial oppression and then, perhaps we will regain the right to be a productive and truly rich nation.

Military spending might seem a great option while our leaders create wars....but the toil on human life (our soldiers and families) is 100 fold in costs and psychological break down which does not balance out as they return to a country they give their lives for but is not prepared to take care of them. Once again....Absurd!

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." -- U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864

"Why should they be restricted from grouping together and exercising "speech" in terms of campaign donations?"

but they're not grouping together. More often than not a few executives are getting together and making decisions that are basically screwing over the rank and file. As an example when the executives of xyz corporation lobby the politicians to make it easier to outsource American jobs overseas, does that represent what the other 75000 employees wanted?

Democracy does not give the right of groups to vote, but to individuals only. A corporation has no right in the national debate that precedes an election to drown out the voices of the many by the voices of a few.

Free speech is a wonderful exercise of political freedom, but when it has degraded into unfair speech, powered by wealth instead of by equally divided expression, it becomes the polar opposite of freedom, and results in the oppression of the very right we hold most precious.

Does a person in the audience have the right to purchase a megaphone and during the debate drown out the voice of his candidates opponent? That would be considered unfair and he would thrown out of the auditorium. A corporation or other member of the national audience also has no right to disturb the debate that precedes an election.

And you don't think the people will throw out the corporation that tries to hoard all the air time? That is precisely the point - corporations try to avoid the obvious because they are afraid of pissing people off - who would buy their products then? Or vote to aid their usurpation of elector rights?

Listen, Obama railed against Citizen because of the anti-Hillary content; the conservatives jumped all over it because they can't put the rationalism of a stoic in front of fear. But this is just not the way corporations lend support to politicians - there is a PAC, which donates to a created PAC, which donates to a created a PAC... and it's impossible to determine if the initial contribution was for support of the non-profit or some long range support of a politician. But Exxon-Mobil's not running any obvious ads that say "Exxon Mobil loves Obama" (required disclosure); if they did would you vote for Obama?

When people see the ads run by the super pacs, most assume they are from the candidate. Sheldon Adelson supplied the money for Gingrich's run in South Carolina, $10 milion. What percentage of the voters had a clue who was really paying for the ads? I never viewed the ads since I live in California, but I would guarantee Adelsons name was not in the fine print at the end.

If you you are curious to find out where the money is really coming from, go to this site:

I'm willing to concede your argument; permit you to revisit Citizens, but only if you do so in a manner that allows associations of people to retain a public voice, within the same scope of the statute, of utilizing electronic media within 30 days of the election.

I'll grant you the right to deny the disclosed corporation, if you ensure that we do not chill the individual right of free association for the purpose of expressing economically driven political speech.

Obama has never fully disclosed contributions, anymore than Hillary has. Or anymore than Bush did. It's foolish to think otherwise; what we fear most are foreign contributions.

You know, when it gets to the point where the voter potential of those seeking "free" outweighs that of those who supply the treasury, the treasury is doomed, and since all rests on this treasury, then we must conclude a general impoverishment is in our future.

I can prove this logically, but what all democratic politics comes down to this: it's always the hedonist versus the stoic. If there was more dedication in government to the welfare of the whole - if we were of one people like many European nations are - then we could apply some level of intelligence to resolving problems on the level of mutually beneficial; in the US this is not possible because there are too many conflicting interests.

If we keep pushing in this direction many of the future are going to discard self improvement through education and employment, with an eye towards pensions, investment nest eggs, and medical care, in favor of the welfare of the couch and the big screen. Because it will simply be more profitable to the less motivated. At 18, I did not want to spend the rest of my life on the couch but many today do; the stoic in me still does not permit this.

There is a line between speaking for your association and speaking for a candidate. Associations have never had the right to a direct vote in elections. Should they have any right to effect their outcome?

The word Democracy means a rule of the people. Nowhere in the Constitution does it include or imply that corporations or any other associations have the right to take part in it's functions.

A common man might be able to contribute $100 to the candidate of his choice. A large association or wealthy individual can and do contribute millions. The first amendment guarantees the right of free speech, but it does not guarantee the right of unfair or unequal speech. Just like a man cannot yell fire in a crowded theater, a man cannot amplify his voice 100,000 times (as Adelson did) and expect the first amendment to protect that injustice.

The owners, employees, and stock holders of a corporation individually are able to contribute to the candidates of their choice, their right of political free speech. But as members of an association, they get to speak a second time. The more associations they contribute to increases their influence as they speak a third and a fourth time. And when their contributions becomes so large, the volume of their tiny voices becomes amplified to that of a pack of roaring lions. Clearly they have an advantage that the common man does not.

Democracy was never meant to give some more voice than others. It was meant to give an equal voice to all. When the voices become unequal in volume and duration, Democracy does not exist.

When a small group of people, who for their own love of money, grab the reins of Democracy and trample the most cherished rights of the people in order to obtain that wealth, who are the stoics and who are the hedonists?

Although I don't agree that associations should have any right of speech in regard to elections, I do acknowledge that they do have a right to speech in general. In order to accomplish fair speech among the common man, the wealthy man, and the corporation, I would place a strict and equal limit on contributions from each. No more that a few hundred dollars per candidate and limited to the locality in which the contributor resides.

You're saying then that Citizens United, as an incorporated non-profit free association of people, did not have the right to broadcast on pay per view within thirty days of the election? Because that's what this suit was about.

And you have to wonder who was really behind this - we know that Citizens is a "conservative" organization with powerful backers; we also know that Hillary did NOT get the nomination, don't we? So I have to ask, who is the true conservative here, do we even know?

There is no such thing as equal speech; if it is held to such limits then it is not "free," it is restricted. This is a country founded on the free expression of thought; it could not have come into existence as our America any other way.

Had the injunction been upheld it would have given this government the ability to deny all corporations - new stations, internet non-profits (including this sight) - the ability to broadcast within thirty days.

I don't understand how anyone can be so naive as to not see this. Corporations do not speak with words; they speak with the money of campaign contributions - they literally purchase the favor of politicians; they don't employ electronic means to influence the vote.

We already have election law... I don't like all of it, but we have it. The only reason Obama won the last election was that he had the money to monopolize TV time; otherwise he would have lost. And he's financially in the lead once again; how is this possible? Well, I have news for you - it's NOT possible.

The problem, honestly, in respect to many of these discussions here is that too many in this country do NOT read.

Thanks. Interesting the point count was up to 5 points, now down to 1. The trolls didn't like it. Must be worthy of suppressing. Have you noticed a lot of new trolls lately? There will probably be droves before election day.

Basically the same group of trolls/shills - just the new names as they keep getting booted. It is funny that they keep with the same program of silent down votes - as the down voting only points out their activity ( anti-people ) and can not collapse/hide a comment any more.

Yep they keep claiming that Occupy has died - but advertise the fact that it is still very much alive with their on-going attacks - FUNNY.

The House has passed this year’s defense authorization bill which departs from last year’s debt limit deal by adding $8 billion above spending targets set for the military, and by replacing the defense side of the automatic “trigger” cuts with cuts from elsewhere in the budget.

Jobs, jobs, jobs. Oh, and Fiscal responsibility? What we need is more money in politics. It is the best investment around.

IF anyone wishes to consider them as such, they must also accept that 'The Corporation' is dedicated ONLY to 'the bottom line and profit maximisation' via 'Limited Liability' and "Externalities" and it is incapable of any genuine human empathy or indeed human feelings of any kind - which would make them in effect - 'Psychopaths' !!!

The documentary examines the modern-day corporation, considering its legal status as a class of person and evaluating its behaviour towards society and the world at large as a psychiatrist might evaluate an ordinary person. This is explored through specific examples. The documentary shows the development of the contemporary business corporation, from a legal entity that originated as a government-chartered institution meant to affect specific public functions, to the rise of the modern commercial institution entitled to most of the legal rights of a person.

The film begins with the revelation that, according to a Supreme Court ruling, a corporation must be considered a person rather than an entity. Under this definition - corporations can be categorized as psychopathic because they exhibit a personality disorder: that of single-mindedly pursuing their objectives without regard for the people in and around them.

Sorry to butt into the conversation you are having with a butthead - but you might want to look at a movie ( science fiction ) called Hard Wired - it is kind of like an updated 1984 with a mixture of Robo-Cop.

Anyway the movie points to another scenario of a corpoRAT ruled world.

CorpoRations have gained ruler-ship of the government - now get this - through their bailout of the Government. But anyway now the corpoRATs rule and one corpoRAT decides that they do not have enough advertising market so they start playing around with a ( I guess ) kind of a cloud drive computer to be implanted in a persons head to give direct access to the brain.

I remember when I was in middle school - back in the way back - and I was reading an article on a bio-engineered computer to be implanted in the brain for direct access. This was prior to the human genome project - way prior to it.

I've seen tv shows where they take a disabled guy and wire him into the computer to allow the person to move the mouse around. We are probably pretty dang close to hard-wired being not only possible, but practical as well. I'm sure they will pitch it as a product that will help you save money like progressive does with the car implant .

I think the basic idea is we need to keep tight supervision on the empty suits or they will continue to cause a lot of damage in the same old ways and eventually find even worse ways to screw up the world.
↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

Technology should not be in the hands of empty suits with no supervision - that is a disaster movie waiting to happen.
↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

It is a disaster already happening - I edited my last comment.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (10262) from Coon Rapids, MN 4 minutes ago

And therein lies the rub. Technology can be very beneficial as long as it is not allowed to be abused/misused or even set aside to continue with something like pollution tech / fossil fuel programs.
↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply edit delete permalink

I think the basic idea is we need to keep tight supervision on the empty suits or they will continue to cause a lot of damage in the same old ways and eventually find even worse ways to screw up the world.

You're a total effin' half-wit and I suggest to you that this really isn't the place for you to be parading your intellectual limitations but "made up off" =/= [Does Not Equal] - A Natural Person With THE RIGHTS & RESPONSIBILITIES of Being So !!!

"Corporate Personhood" is the matter in question here, numb-nuts and their legal status usurping those of Real People ! Are you a 'real person' or a Reactionary Corporate Apologist ?!! Now go reflect deeply before hazarding any reply !!

Also Urgently Watch : "The Corporation" : http://documentary.net/the-corporation/ and try to digest the information & only come back bleating after you have marshalled some valid arguments that can hold a thimble full of metaphors of reason !

Sure corporations are made of people, and people get one vote each as individuals. They don't get one vote each also as members of a group, or of each group they belong to. They have one voice and they can raise it in support or opposition, but unless they are ventriloquists, they can't speak with multiple voices at the same time. I haven't heard the employees of GM or Halliburton claiming they should get more votes, have you?

Americans of both parties overwhelmingly oppose a Supreme Court ruling that allows corporations and unions to spend as much as they want on political campaigns, and most favor new limits on such spending, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. Eight in 10 poll respondents say they oppose the high court's Jan. 21 decision to allow unfettered corporate political spending, with 65 percent "strongly" opposed. Nearly as many backed congressional action to curb the ruling, with 72 percent in favor of reinstating limits.

The poll reveals relatively little difference of opinion on the issue among Democrats (85 percent opposed to the ruling), Republicans (76 percent) and independents (81 percent).

Policy shouldn't be decided by the loudness of a few people who can buy sound amplifiers but by the persuasiveness of the argument to gain the largest number of voices and votes.

This was decided a hundred years ago and the "opinion" the change was based on (judicial activism from the folks bitching about judicial activism) was not an official court opinion but notes in a margin.

Cutting military spending, we could cut the contractors (mercenaries, and foreign logistics personnel, a very recent approach to expanding government under Bush Cheney) as a start. And as we cut those jobs, we could rehire teachers, cops and firemen, designers and builders of infrastructure so that the result is relatively neutral. You can hire two or three teachers for the cost of a government contractor. Would you like to keep all of the current defense people or hire more people for less money and cut the deficit?

We should plan on cutting the Defense and Homeland Security budgets by 40% over the next decade, in any case. We should be able to keep China and Russia at bay with a Defense budget equal to both of theirs combined, especially since we are so exceptional? At least we should go back to 2001 before right wing hysteria took over our good judgement?

Of course corporations are people. As a matter of fact just last week I took Exxon/Mobile out on a date, and let me tell you, she was a wildcat in bed! Hopefully someday we can get married and have little ones. Hey if it's doesn't work out, the divorce settlement will be huge.

People pay taxes - And corporations pay taxes.
But a Corporation is not a natural person. Employees vote not corporations.

Military Spending would cause higher unemployment right - not if the budgets where spend on infrastructure, education, healthcare research,
public transportation, live supportive inovations, Independent Energy ...

You are glossing over the life damaging effects of shutting a military base and the loss if economic vitality in that area. Lets take Great Lakes Naval north of Chicago. Go ahead and close it down, and see what happens to Waukegan. Instant ghost town, restaurants shuttered, supermarkets empty.

Also, you just made a really poor choice. Its the type choice Congressmen and Senators are faced. GLNB is an antiquated, useless facility. There is not a single naval operation in todays modern naval warfare that can be demonstrated on a freshwater lake! But Illinois politicians would commit electoral suicide if they agreed to close it.

I think with all the waste, and the obscenely high exec salaries/bonuses we cut quite a bit before we cut the workers you mention.

In the end some workers should take pay cuts. Others should retire early, others will work on other projects (military and non military). Great efforts can be made to minimize and mitigate job loses for middle class workers.

We don't need the F35 or the F22 (which can't fly in the rain). We don't need pilots. UAV's and missiles can do the jobs without risking pilots. Fighter planes are big boy toys. We don't need the amphib tanks. We can cut the CIA and DIA budgets by cancelling the contractors and hiring them back to their old jobs for half what they are costing since we started contracting with Lockheed et al for the same guys that they hired from the CIA and DIA.

Are you curious as to why with a $700 billion Defense budget we can't sustain more than 150,000 troops abroad in Irag or Afghanistan? Do the math.

Worldwide when ever the US army closed military bases, there was a short downturn, but after 2 - 3 years new industries parks and business opportunities developed, No difference in business - well after 2 - 3 years. But business that pais taxes and is not supported by any government.

They have a right to speak in unison, the same as anybody else. Corporations do not work in this manner anyway, it's simply too obvious and they don't want to be viewed as trying to buy an election; soft money is their modus operandi - always was and always will be.